The story of Mattie Ross, a young girl on the hunt for her fathers killer, True Grit first made its way to the big screen in 1969. Based on the Charles Portis novel of the same name, True Grit is as much about the tonalities and intricacies of revenge, perseverance and justice as it is about the adventurous journey into the dangerous land that forms the location of the films setting. The material proves to be the perfect source for the Coen Brothers, who made waves within the Western genre in 2007 with No Country For Old Men. The premise also proved to be perfect for a reunion between the Coen’s and their most popular player, Jeff Bridges, in a role that may just define his later career. Yet make no mistake, Bridges is not the star of True Grit, that honour falls upon another…

Newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, appearing in every scene in the film as the protagonist Mattie Ross holds the film together, in a manner far more accomplished than her young years would have you expect (In spite of what Paramount might have you believe, but more on that later). Mattie’s perspective guides the film wholly. Bookended by her voice-over narration the journey is hers, her seeking of justice/revenge being the character arc that forms the brunt of the movie. As a result of this there are moments were we are drawn away from the action of a scene, and forced to view things from afar. Sequences such as the band’s encounter with a pair of outlaws holed up inside a shack, which we view from Mattie’s vantage point on the roof of said shack constantly remind us of who’s story it is that we are viewing. The films big set-piece, if it could be called that is viewed entirely from “at least 400 yards” away (according to one characters estimation), such is the stringency by which the Coen Brothers stick to this forced perspective angle. It’s a heavily effective creative decision, working perfectly.

Jeff Bridges, filling the weighty boots of the big screen’s previous Rooster Cogburn assignee John Wayne, achieves what many would have deemed the impossible, and takes Wayne’s iconic Cogburn and makes him his own. The surly Marshall with a well-hidden heart of gold is given a second life with Bridges. If only the Academy hadn’t thrown away their obligatory Bridges Oscar last year he would have been a shoe-in this time around. Matt Damon, in his second of three performances in as many weeks proves a wonderful sparring partner for Bridges, the two bouncing off of each other like old friends. Damon’s character, a Texas Ranger by the name of LaBoeuf has the choicest of lines too. Barry Pepper, as the aptly titled Ned Pepper makes his first relevant on-screen appearance since underrated modern Western The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, alongside No Country For Old Men alumni Josh Brolin in the very brief, but pivotal role of Tom Chaney. Pepper does a great job of a role made famous by Robert Duvall, and Brolin is suitably menacing as the epitome of evil at the heart of the world of the movie.

As mentioned before Hailee Steinfeld’s lack of a public presence is truly baffling. A marketing campaign laden with ageism at best and sexism at worst. It’s a similar affair over at the Academy, with Steinfeld relegated to the supporting category, revealing that the matters of sexism and ageism are still rife within the Hollywood elite. It’s nothing short of disgraceful.

The film opens with a slow drift into the body of a man, which is soon to be revealed to be that of the protagonist’s father. A technical marvel, Roger Deakins’s always solid photography sets the tone for the picture that follows. A stunning reveal of Fort Smith, the township at the centre of True Grit, follows, widening the frame and injecting an air of the particular brand of nostalgia familiar with this line of cinema. It's fair to say that the genre taps into Hollywood’s longing for a mythology heavily informed by a yearning for something bordering on schmaltz (regardless of the subject matter/content). As the train that has brought young Maddie Ross to Fort Smith departs from the frame, the scope of the former military outpost is fully revealed, accompanied by Carter Burwell’s elevating score. Mere seconds after this moment the film’s true colours once again rear there head, as the public hanging of three convicts brings the pleasant pace to an abrupt end. It’s a rough, harsh scene, yet still manages to be filled with humour, courtesy of the treatment of one of the three. The film starts as it means to go on.

While True Grit initially stemmed from the pen of Charles Portis in the late 1960’s, the trademark off-kilter drama that stands at the centre of the majority of their weeks are apparent all over the film. A chance encounter with a bear-skin covered dentist breaks up the mid-section of the film, in an appearance that will surprise no one to know came from the mind of the brothers Coen. The most apparent external influence on the Coen’s take on True Grit might just be Charles Laughton’s The Night Of The Hunter. Most obviously through the use of the hymn Leaning on the Everlasting Arms, and during a beautifully starlit race for life towards the end of the film, the influence of Laughton’s film can be felt over the whole of the picture. Be it through the overbearing sense of doom or of its concepts of fate, the fairytale-spun style of The Night Of The Hunter clearly informs the language of the Coen brothers work.

The eventual fate of Rooster hints at an end to the old West hero that is far removed from the heroic sacrifice of the tradition. As America developed, and law caught up with the wilds of the west country, the role of the likes of Rooster Cogburn developed, with their ultimate fate in travelling fetes and road-shows marking a distinctive shift from their lives of old (although being placed in a position of entertainment did predict the early years of the cinema, with the likes of The Great Train Robbery and the films of Broncho Billy Anderson). As the films closing imagery, an the announcement of “In loving memory” upon that most typical icon of Western idol, the tombstone, makes clear, the Coen’s film is their love letter to the American cinema, utilising its most beloved son, the low-down dirty outlaw.

The Coen Brothers have said that this is not a remake of the 1969 True Grit; they�ve said that it�s their version of the book. But for arguments sake I�m going to say that we have a remake better than the original. I know it�s only February but this is film of the year so far for me and it�ll take some beating. True Grit is a powerfully moving western with some fantastic performances, brilliantly directed, shockingly tense and just an absolute joy to watch. True Grit is the story of Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) a fourteen-year-old girl who is looking to avenge her father death by tracking down his killer. The film starts off with Mattie looking to find a man with true grit to help her in the quest to find her father�s killer Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Mattie finds the drunken Marshall by the name of Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and is persistent in getting him to help her. He doesn�t agree to anything but the stubborn young girl feels the need to make some money. This part of the film for me was its only flaw and it�s a small one at that. The start for me seemed a bit brief and vague and I felt as though if I hadn�t watched the John Wayne version then I might not have fully of understood what was going on. After this Mattie pulls Rooster around and the two agree to go looking for Tom Chaney. The next morning Mattie is a little bit annoyed to find that Rooster has already gone without her. Mattie turns up at the Indian Territory boarder to find Rooster has left with a Texas Ranger by the name of LaBoeuf (Matt Damon).Pronounced LaBeef. This is when the movie really kicks in when Mattie shows her true grit by swimming across the river on her horse. She isn�t welcomed but the journey continues. By far my favourite scene of the year so far comes when Rooster and Mattie are left by LaBoeuf and they come across a cabin. The two go inside and they try and get a bit of info about the whereabouts of

Wrong. It's shit. BTW, your review looks kind of phoney and bizarre. Are you marketing spam for the film distributers?

I don't know whether I should laugh at you or cry? Perhaps you could watch the whole film and then give it a fair review?

I'd cry. If he/she thinks this magnificent film is 'shit' I worry for their taste generally.

Bruv, I ain't the one with a pic of Pee Wee Herman in my profile.

I generally worry for the brain cells of anyone that thinks this shit film is "magnificent".

This is a truly outstanding film. From the cinematography through to the sublime score and then to the wonderful acting on show, this is as perfect a western - or as perfect a film - you're likely to get. Thank god for the Coen brothers.

I thought it was great but maybe not up there with my favourite Coen films (Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, Big Lebowski...) I'd give it an 8/10 rather than the 9s and 9.5s for the above. Script was razor-sharp and the performances uniformly great, Matt Damon a particular surprise in a relatively thankless supporting role spent in The Duke's shadow.

Couldn't agree more with one of the posters above that Steinfeld isn't talked about in conjunction with awards, thought she was superb and one of the best 'child' performances I've seen in ages. Supporting Actress? This can only because she's not top of the bill because Mattie is the lead character here... although it may be a good thing as Natalie Portman rightly has the Best Actress Oscar sewn up.

It seems obligatory for 'true' film fans to like the Coen Brothers, but I personally don’t like their films much at all, with their quirky characters, reams of ‘clever’ dialogue, unfunny ‘humour’,’ funny’ violence and ‘cool’ irony. To be honest they mostly bore me senseless, although to be fair I’ve only seen about half of them. Against the odds though, they don’t mess up True Grit, though it would be hard to totally screw up a story like this, which is partially a coming of age tale and partially a revenge saga. Now I haven’t seen the John Wayne version, but I doubt it’s as good as this one, which is one of the gorgeous looking Westerns in ages, Roger Deatkins’ photography painting wonderful scapes of almost sepia-I especially loved the courtroom with the brown and yellow seeping through from outside. Everything feels authentic, from the clothing to the speech, and although things proceed very slowly, the film remains engrossing. The usual Coen touches are thankfully mostly held back, and when they do surface they seem out of place in what is a very classical story, as does their very modern cynicism, but against the odds the film ends up being rather touching at the end. There’s less violence than expected, but you do still get a gory finger severing which the film would actually be better off without. As usual Jeff Bridges has charisma to spare, but once again he just mumbles most of the time, which may be appropriate to the character but is very irritating. Hailee Steinfield does okay with a difficult role but she’s too robotic in her delivery at times. There’s a superb score by Carter Burwell partially based on hymns from the period-it’s completely the opposite of a typical Western score but works very well. Overall this is a fine, though hardly great, Western and far better than expected, showing that perhaps the Coen Brothers, who started off fairly well with Blood Simple and Raising Arizona, have remembered how to make enjoyable movies again.

Great film, deserving of all the praise and awards it receives. Bridges is fantastic as the mumbling, dunkerd Rooster Cogburn and the relationship he has with Mattie isn't conventional, but is still touching and heartfelt. Hailee Steinfeld is the real star, and it's difficult to believe that she is only 14!

The Coen's have added another masterpiece to the already amazing C.V.. The cast are electrifying with Bridges easily filling the shoes which John Wayne and Steinfeld in particular pulls you into her story and lighting up this beautiful re-telling of Charles Portis story, The Coens best since No Country for Old Men.

Strange film this is. I have seen the hathaway version some 20 years back. I remember it a fine film with Wayne in a great role. But nothing spectacular. This was my initial reaction after seeing the Coens version. Not spectacular. A bit underwhelmed. That's not to say this is a bad film. On the contrary: it's a superb piece of cinema. I am a huge Coen fan. Why? Because these fellows understand cinema like no other filmmaker does. I remember seeing The Man Who Wasn't There in the theatre. I liked it, but I was put off kilter. Was is noir? Was it pastiche? Was it serious? Was it comedy? I rated it about a 7 at the time. I rewatched it several times sinse then and I love it now. There's so much love for the craft. So many details and it is done with one very important aspect: they make the films for themselves. In the scarse interviews the give they will tell you: initially they make 'm for themselves and if later it turns out that other people like 'm too; it's a bonus. The film grew on me and I regard it as a masterpiece now.

Same thing here: they took a famous western novel from the early sixties and put their own spin on it. The language (as spoken in the novel) is fittingly old fashioned. The setting, the setdesign, the locations and the photography are absolute brilliance. The story is fittingly restrained allthough slow-paced. I think have to see this a few times more coming years and who knows it will grow on me, even more.

Certainly nice to watch,but also an example of a film that should have been much longer.3 hours would have been great.Lacks in the score department.Matt Damon once again like watchin Bourne in fancy dress. Barry Pepper is superb,how good would it be to have hime play a character like this again soon! Def not a 5 star film though!

I'll give it another one star. There you go. A shitter film couldn't deserve better. Can't be bothered to explain why it sucks, wasted enough time in the 30 mins before I walked out. Movie 4 pussies prolly sums it up. First Tron Legacy, now this. Is Jeff Bridges going on a Nic Cage - type trash run?

I'll give it another one star. There you go. A shitter film couldn't deserve better. Can't be bothered to explain why it sucks, wasted enough time in the 30 mins before I walked out. Movie 4 pussies prolly sums it up. First Tron Legacy, now this. Is Jeff Bridges going on a Nic Cage - type trash run?

I'll give it another one star. There you go. A shitter film couldn't deserve better. Can't be bothered to explain why it sucks, wasted enough time in the 30 mins before I walked out. Movie 4 pussies prolly sums it up. First Tron Legacy, now this. Is Jeff Bridges going on a Nic Cage - type trash run?

If you hate it so much then why do you keep going on about it? Get over it. You don't even have a valid opinion given that you only saw the first 30 minutes of the damn thing.

I'll give it another one star. There you go. A shitter film couldn't deserve better. Can't be bothered to explain why it sucks, wasted enough time in the 30 mins before I walked out. Movie 4 pussies prolly sums it up. First Tron Legacy, now this. Is Jeff Bridges going on a Nic Cage - type trash run?

ORIGINAL: adambatman82 As mentioned before Hailee Steinfeld's lack of a public presence is truly baffling. A marketing campaign laden with ageism at best and sexism at worst. It's a similar affair over at the Academy, with Steinfeld relegated to the supporting category, revealing that the matters of sexism and ageism are still rife within the Hollywood elite. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Oh come off it, she's received recognition for her performance regardless of whether she would have won the oscar or not. Why would she need a golden statuette to 'validate' her performance? What I find disgraceful is the oscar ceremony itself. Full of nepotism, decadence and a debauched atmosphere for mere ostentatious peacock showing-off. When did any of the oscar recipients thank the film crew for putting a hell of a lot more work into making their films? That's the real disgrace.

Frankly, I found "True Grit" to be more 'true sh*t'. I don't mean to be crass there but it was dire. I thought Jeff Bridges played his role as if he was a drunk motorcycle gang leader, clearly stuck in the wrong century. An oddity which made his performance both bizarre and anachronistic. I could barely understand his speech and his incessant slurring was both distracting and gratuitous. "I'm here to kill yew!" was probably a comedic highlight for me. I agree with Mark Kermode, I think he purposefully went the unintelligble route to try and distance himself as much as possible from the John Wayne character. It's patently obvious he went way off the reservation there, pun fully intended. I thought the Hailee Steinfeld character was obnoxious, conceited and basically she came across as a rather precocious and unpleasant little snot. The actress reminded me of 'wonder-child' actors such as Haley Joel Osment (yes he's 'grown up') and that girl from "Kick-Ass" and "(500) Days of Summer". Far too world-weary for their age and the dialogue just doesn't mesh for someone of their age. I believe in the original film the female character was older, at least a late adolescent/young adult which was befitting more of her dialogue. Clearly they miscast her. I thought Matt Damon was fairly anonymous and wasn't given much to go on. He's an actor I rate highly. I thought the only 'stand-out' performance was by Barry Pepper. A complete character change and you could barely recognise him, I thought he did a great job and I would love to see him in another western film. Furthermore, I have to add that it was embarrassing to see the visual effects for the night riding scene at the end. You could clearly see a background screen behind Jeff Bridges as he was galloping along with poor Miss Daisy. Completely awful. I'm not a fan of the Coen Brothers and I think the only other film of theirs I've seen is "O Brother, where art thou?". Once more not exactly enamoured with it so I don't feel the need to make the obligatory reference to their 'successful' film career. My dad saw the film with me and he remarked that there was more of a spark or 'fun' between the John Wayne character and the lead female character. I agree with him, I think there was a lack of fun in the proceedings. It was far too plodding punctuated by too few moments of interest, namely the shootouts.

If you want a good period western film, stick to "Tombstone" or "Open Range".

1/5.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BobM70 The language (as spoken in the novel) is fittingly old fashioned. The setting, the setdesign, the locations and the photography are absolute brilliance. The story is fittingly restrained allthough slow-paced. I think have to see this a few times more coming years and who knows it will grow on me, even more.

You'd expect any competent writer and researcher for a film to include these things into a period film such as "True Grit". It's no more remarkable than remembering to include 'spurs' for the cowboy boots as part of the costume design.

Saw this last night, went with 6 mates. 3 thought it was boring, 3 of us thought it was good, most of us wish there had been subtitles I enjoyed it, not their best film by a long way, but entertaining all the same, Mattie and Col Stonehill's exchanges being the highlight for me. Hailee Steinfeld has quite rightly been getting the plaudits, I thought her performance was excellent. Just one thing, what was the Bear Man all about? Anyway, I'd give it 4 stars.

ORIGINAL: BobM70 The language (as spoken in the novel) is fittingly old fashioned. The setting, the setdesign, the locations and the photography are absolute brilliance. The story is fittingly restrained allthough slow-paced. I think have to see this a few times more coming years and who knows it will grow on me, even more.

You'd expect any competent writer and researcher for a film to include these things into a period film such as "True Grit". It's no more remarkable than remembering to include 'spurs' for the cowboy boots as part of the costume design.

Shows how much you know about 'Westerns' and the era then. LeBoeuf wears spurs because he is from Texas, as you noticed no doubt, most of the other cowboys in the film dont.

Saw True Grit last night and loved it. Although the pacing was fairly slow I was entertained throughout due to the humour that peppered the film all the way through. I was totally drawn in to the girl's story and loved her cocky confidence. The only downside would be that a) there wasn't enough gunfights and b) Brolin and Pepper were under used. But apart from that a solid 9/10 for me.

ORIGINAL: Felix Shows how much you know about 'Westerns' and the era then. LeBoeuf wears spurs because he is from Texas, as you noticed no doubt, most of the other cowboys in the film dont.

I honestly couldn't give a toss, son. As you noticed no doubt, my point was about the the things one would normally expect to see in a 'western' film. Given it was a period film one would expect such things as "language (as spoken in the novel) is fittingly old fashioned. The setting, the setdesign, the locations" to be automatically included as part of some competent effort into capturing the essence of the time period. Which has been done many times before. It's why I found their mention by BobM70 to be superfluous.I mentioned 'spurs' as an example of something which is quite a common feature in such films and thus unremarkable it requires no mention. I'm sure a number of extras who were 'cowboys' did wear spurs, admittedly I'm sure my attention would've been better focused on counting them rather than paying attention to the film.

I have seen many westerns (hundreds) and the things I mentioned are really outstanding in True Grit. The costume design is very good. Every single hat, boot, coat or spur is spot on. It's realistic, without being over the top hollywood-western. But is isn't The Proposition-dirty either. The language IS remarkable. They speak a tongue that is late 19th century and not late 20th century or today's. Your missing the point with the horseracing at the end. The crappy background projection surely was a hommage. Knowing that they love The Night of The Hunter, it says enough.

But hey...if you don't like it you are free to do so, but why so bitter and negative?

I have seen many westerns (hundreds) and the things I mentioned are really outstanding in True Grit. The costume design is very good. Every single hat, boot, coat or spur is spot on. It's realistic, without being over the top hollywood-western. But is isn't The Proposition-dirty either. The language IS remarkable. They speak a tongue that is late 19th century and not late 20th century or today's. Your missing the point with the horseracing at the end. The crappy background projection surely was a hommage. Knowing that they love The Night of The Hunter, it says enough.

But hey...if you don't like it you are free to do so, but why so bitter and negative?

Cheers,

Bob

Hello BobM70,

I wasn't having a go at you, I merely remarked that the things you mentioned are the de facto things one would expect to see in a period film. As one wants to re-create the period as authentically as possible. If you felt taken by the technical detail of the film then great, it didn't do anything for me.

If I'm 'bitter' it's because I'm bitterly disappointed with what I saw. I paid £9.20 to go see a film with which I wanted to be entertained and I wasn't. I'm sure anyone would be bitter and negative at having spent money on a disappointment. I don't agree that the language is remarkable because as I understand it, much of the dialogue was taken from the book? Furthermore, it's no more brilliant than what the BBC did with their "The Wild West" drama-documentary, making sure the speech of the time was accurate to the period. In one case they had access to transcribed evidence taken from a court case of Wyatt Earp. Again, not remarkable. The language has survived in literature in numerous forms so it wouldn't be too difficult for a writer to adapt it into a screenplay .

I'm not an erudite follower of the Coen brother's favourite films, so I'm not going to get an obscure homage or reference. Even then, it doesn't change my mind of it, because it's at odds with the more serious tone of the film (despite its 'comedic' moments.). There were things in the film which made me raise an eyebrow. When the three criminals are hanged, they all get to say their piece except the native American. Later on, the Marshall kicks the two native American boys, one of them twice. Clearly they were meant to be humourous but it just came across as rather cheap. I know the Coens are known for their irreverence but I didn't find it funny.

There's the "I spent £9.20 on something I didn't enjoy" kind of bitter and then there's the "Jeff Bridges took a shit in my cornflakes" kind of bitter, though. There seems to be more of the latter in evidence here.

There's the "I spent £9.20 on something I didn't enjoy" kind of bitter and then there's the "Jeff Bridges took a shit in my cornflakes" kind of bitter, though. There seems to be more of the latter in evidence here.

ORIGINAL: adambatman82 As mentioned before Hailee Steinfeld's lack of a public presence is truly baffling. A marketing campaign laden with ageism at best and sexism at worst. It's a similar affair over at the Academy, with Steinfeld relegated to the supporting category, revealing that the matters of sexism and ageism are still rife within the Hollywood elite. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Oh come off it, she's received recognition for her performance regardless of whether she would have won the oscar or not. Why would she need a golden statuette to 'validate' her performance? What I find disgraceful is the oscar ceremony itself. Full of nepotism, decadence and a debauched atmosphere for mere ostentatious peacock showing-off. When did any of the oscar recipients thank the film crew for putting a hell of a lot more work into making their films? That's the real disgrace.

Meh, my point was aimed more at her lack of a presence on the films poster than anything.

ORIGINAL: adambatman82 As mentioned before Hailee Steinfeld's lack of a public presence is truly baffling. A marketing campaign laden with ageism at best and sexism at worst. It's a similar affair over at the Academy, with Steinfeld relegated to the supporting category, revealing that the matters of sexism and ageism are still rife within the Hollywood elite. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Oh come off it, she's received recognition for her performance regardless of whether she would have won the oscar or not. Why would she need a golden statuette to 'validate' her performance? What I find disgraceful is the oscar ceremony itself. Full of nepotism, decadence and a debauched atmosphere for mere ostentatious peacock showing-off. When did any of the oscar recipients thank the film crew for putting a hell of a lot more work into making their films? That's the real disgrace.

Meh, my point was aimed more at her lack of a presence on the films poster than anything.

Still, she's received quite a bit of attention and ultimately people will remember her for her performance. I'm sure she's received a lot of offers.

I like your review by the way. I don't agree with your positive appraisal of it clearly but it was informed and I like how you expand on things beyond the obvious. Your reviews are always a good read. I thought I'd put that out there.Do you think Barry Pepper deserved more praise for his role? Even though I'm not an ardent follower of the Coen Brothers, I am curious about "No Country for Old Men". Is it worth seeing? As I understand, the film is adapted from a book, is that a common thing for them?

ORIGINAL: adambatman82 As mentioned before Hailee Steinfeld's lack of a public presence is truly baffling. A marketing campaign laden with ageism at best and sexism at worst. It's a similar affair over at the Academy, with Steinfeld relegated to the supporting category, revealing that the matters of sexism and ageism are still rife within the Hollywood elite. It's nothing short of disgraceful.

Oh come off it, she's received recognition for her performance regardless of whether she would have won the oscar or not. Why would she need a golden statuette to 'validate' her performance? What I find disgraceful is the oscar ceremony itself. Full of nepotism, decadence and a debauched atmosphere for mere ostentatious peacock showing-off. When did any of the oscar recipients thank the film crew for putting a hell of a lot more work into making their films? That's the real disgrace.

Meh, my point was aimed more at her lack of a presence on the films poster than anything.

Still, she's received quite a bit of attention and ultimately people will remember her for her performance. I'm sure she's received a lot of offers.

I like your review by the way. I don't agree with your positive appraisal of it clearly but it was informed and I like how you expand on things beyond the obvious. Your reviews are always a good read. I thought I'd put that out there.Do you think Barry Pepper deserved more praise for his role? Even though I'm not an ardent follower of the Coen Brothers, I am curious about "No Country for Old Men". Is it worth seeing? As I understand, the film is adapted from a book, is that a common thing for them?

No Country might not be the best point to go from here. True Grit, to me at least, felt like the natural extension of No Country, so if you didn't like TG then No Country might not impress either. It is a very good film tho (and my favourite Coen alongside A Serious Man). What sort of films do you like? The Coen's have covered pretty much every base, so someone ought to be able to recommend something based more closely on your tastes.

I liked Barry Pepper a lot. A really complex, morally ambiguous soul, and one that I felt it difficult to read from one scene to another. He's does that whole "bad guy you don't know whether to trust" role really well, and, considering he was following in the footsteps of Robert Duvall, managed to make the role his own.

"I walked out after 30 minutes. How can the Coens make a hard edged masterpiece like No Country for Old Men and then dull pointless shit like this? So their worst movie is their most successful at the box office. Oscar nominated? Cinema is fucked, but that's not going to be all I'm afraid. Lack of Hollywood talent, subservient media outlets, and gormless domestic and international sheep masses have let it happen."

Yawn. How arogant and self absorbed you must be, that when you find yourself disagreeing with the world, you claim that the world is crazy. Also, your opinion of the film has no validity as you haven't even seen it. You've seen 30 minutes of it. If you'd had the patience and sense to stay longer than 30 minutes, you'd have been able to see some people getting shot and that! Maybe that would elevate the film from the infamous critical status of "movie 4 pussies".